[Mageia-dev] Seamonkey package

Fri Mar 18 03:23:39 CET 2011

nicolas vigier a écrit :
+>
+> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, andre999 wrote:
+>
+>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
+>>>
+>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
+>>>
+>>>>
+>>>>
+>>>> Quote: Christiaan Welvaart wrote on Thu, 10 March 2011 23:26
+>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
+>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, nicolas vigier wrote:
+>>>>>
+>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> Unfortunately the seamonkey name and logos are trademarked and the
+>>>>> license
+>>>>>>> terms are most likely not acceptable so it seems to me we'll have
+>>>>> to
+>>>>>>> rename/rebrand it.
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> Is it different than firefox license terms ?
+>>>>>
+>>>>> Same rules AFAIK, see
+>>>>>      http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
+>>
+>> Indeed, exactly the same rules.
+>>
+>>>> I don't see why we need to change the name. The policy says:
+>>>>
+>>>> "If you compile Mozilla unmodified source code (including code and config
+>>>> files in the installer) and do not charge for it, you do not need
+>>>> additional permission from Mozilla to use the relevant Mozilla Mark(s) for
+>>>> your compiled version."
+>>>
+...
+>>> And it seems mandriva seamonkey package also has some patchs :
+>>> http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/seamonkey/current/SOURCES/
+>>
+>> These are mosty against obsolete versions of Seamonkey. (Which may predate
+>> the current Mozilla policy.)
+>
+> This is the package for version 2.0.12, which is the latest version,
+> released 2 weeks ago. Is this what you call an obsolete version ?
+
+Didn't notice that, about 5 pages down.  And they were mostly 
+localisation modules, I assume unmodified.  In any case, most 
+correctives should be available in (Mozilla) cvs.
+There were pages of entries for the obsolete versions 1.17 or before, 
+which I believe predates the Mozilla policy change.
+
+> And the Mozilla policy is not new, I doubt the patches predate the
+> policy ...
+>
+...
+>>
+>> Note also that if applied patches come from Mozilla, that shouldn't require
+>> permission.  (And Mozilla issues a lot of patches, particularly for
+>> security.)
+>
+> This is not security patches. Did you look at the patches ?
+
+Whatever, they could come from Mozilla.
+If a bug is found, it can easily be submitted to Mozilla, and applied 
+once accepted, from cvs -- which doesn't have to await another release.
+
+> By the way, did you really see Mozilla issue a lot of patches ?
+> They usually don't release patch on their ftp server, and only release
+> new tarballs for new versions when they need to fix security issues.
+>
+> And did you really see anything in the policy talking about patches
+> coming from Mozilla, or is it just an other random statement ?
+
+Did you happen to notice the references to obtaining the source code 
+from (Mozilla) cvs ?
+
+Surprisingly, that is where they put their patches.  And no, it is not a 
+random statement.  I have downloaded Mozilla patches from cvs.
+(Much if not most are to scripts, very easily applied without even 
+recompiling.)
+
+>> As well, we don't use the logo for advertising, we are just repackaging the
+>> software as part of our distribution.
+>
+> We are using the logo and the name, so we need to follow the policy (or
+> use rebranded version).
+
+We are not using the logo and name outside of the product itself, which 
+as I understand remains unchanged.
+
+>> It might install in a somewhat different location, but that doesn't change
+>> the contained binaries or scripts.  Also, binaries distributed by Mozilla
+>> without installer (in a compressed file) can be installed (almost) anywhere
+>> one likes.
+>
+> The list of changes that require permision to use the Mozilla Marks
+> includes "file location changes". Did you read the policy ?
+
+I read it.  Are you saying that an installer version is chosen and the 
+install locations are changed, or that a non-installer version is 
+chosen, and the relative locations are changed by Mageia compiles ?
+If it wasn't clear, my point is that we can work around that without 
+problem.
+
+>>> Also the "do not charge for it" would make it non free (but it does not
+>>> seem to be mentioned in the "Modifications" section, only in the
+>>> "Unaltered Binaries" section).
+>>
+>> Why would "do not charge for it" make it non-free ?
+>> That doesn't seem to be a requirement of open source.  Although charging
+>> for it is generally permitted in unmodified open source licenses.
+>
+> Did you read the open source definition ?
+> http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
+> First line says : "The license shall not restrict any party from selling
+> or giving away the software ..."
+
+You forgot the rest of the sentence, which reads : "... as a component 
+of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several 
+different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee 
+for such sale."
+In other words, no bar on forbidding the sale of a particular component 
+in itself.  Which, as I understand it, is compatible with the position 
+of Mozilla.
+In a previous post in this thread, I pointed out that the FSF considers 
+the Xinetd license to be a free software license, albeit not compatible 
+with GPL.  The Xinetd license contains a clause not permitting selling 
+the software.
+See <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Xinetd_License>
+
+> You're talking about a policy that you didn't read.
+
+Or perhaps you didn't understand what I said ...
+
+> You're talking about "open source" while you didn't read the definition.
+
+Or more exactly, that you didn't finish reading the sentence.  Or maybe 
+you didn't understand ?
+Note that you chose the OSI definition of open source -- and evidently. 
+there are others.
+
+> It would be nice if you could stop sending emails with almost only false informations, and instead only
+  talk about what you know, or take the time to check what you're saying.
+
+Sorry that you feel so challenged by differing opinions ...
+
+>>> So maybe we need to request permission, as explained in the
+>>> "Modifications" section.
+>>
+>> I don't think we need to, but we can always confirm via
+>> trademarks at mozilla.com
+>
+> It probably won't be a problem to get permission, but we need to ask.
+> I think Romain plans to see this with people from Mozilla europe.
+
+Like I said, we can always confirm.
+
+Btw, it's great to have these nice friendly discussions, with free and 
+open exchange of opinion -- don't you think ? :)
+
+-- 
+André
+